[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
The dealer who responded with least amount of time for analysis was sent
the specimen ("probably" without an export permit from the Australian
government). After a preliminary analysis (a visual inspection, as I
understand it), the classification of ureilite was given to the specimen.
Since it was (probably) exported without proper papers, an Australian name
for a new, rare meteorite would surely attract attention. Therefore,
(again, as I understand it) the dealer proposed the name of Kent, Texas for
this new find. This name would later be changed (by the dealer?) to Window
Butte, Utah.
After the naming and renaming of the specimen, there was not any
documentation about the find with anyone except the dealer who had the
specimen in possession. And, as it turned out, the rare (and expensive)
ureilite happened to be an even more rare (and even more expensive)
brachinite. Those who found it in Australia realized, upon hearing of its
true classification, that they should have been paid quite a bit more money
(as much as $20,000 more) for this super-rare specimen. They were angry,
and felt cheated (even though they may have violated the law to make money).
Back in the USA, again from what I've heard, a meteorite nomenclature
committee felt that the name Window Butte, Utah was unsubstantiated.
Therefore, the nomenclature committee gave the specimen the "Nova 003"
name. Because of the implications from the lack of substantiation for the
Utah location, there was some degree of insinuation challenging the
dealer's honesty. Because of the dealers presence in meteoritics, this
caused the views of several individuals involved in the upper echelon of
meteorite identification to develop rather polarized opinions.
For most of those involved, the issue came to rest when the Australian
location was either roughly identified by the exporters, or the specimen
was paired with another specimen with a known location. The name Reid 013
was given to the specimen, and the Window Butte, Utah name was dropped as a
realistic location. To my knowledge, the Texas location never materialized
in either name or specimen. In the end, it appears that "almost" all of
the meteorite community has adopted the Reid 013 name for the specimen.
This story is one of many. I've heard that very few meteorites are
exported legally from Australia, including the abundant irons and stones
(Miles may be an exception). The recent articles about the Sikhote-Alin
fall have documented the pirating of meteorites. I've also heard that much
of the unoxidized Hucketta that recently found its way onto the market was
originally in buckets along with Henbury. It seems that few people knew
that this location contained fresh-metal specimens That is, until the
finder of many of the Hucketta pieces we have in our collections committed
suicide, and fresh-metal Hucketta specimens were found in his home, along
with the Henburys (they may have even originally been sold as Henburys).
The stories go on and on. And, as I have said before, it will be difficult
for any of us to claim honest or ethical ownership of many of the
meteorites in our collections, whether overseas (regardless of your
continent) or not. I could continue about others cases (as I have before
with Millbillillie, Pillistifer, Zagami, Canyon Diablo, Odessa, S-A,
Mundrabilla, Allende, Murchison, etc.), but I hope everyone gets the
picture.
One other note: Although I do often question the legal or ethical
ownership of many meteorites (and gemstones), I personally poses
representatives of all those listed above. In fact, although I believe
that some science is lost through the meteorite trade, there is also
security in that representative specimens will be preserved somewhere in
the world after the wars, earthquakes, fires (as with the early Smithsonian
collection and other university collections), theft, poor trading by
curators, and even (believe it or not) neglect by museums to best preserve
the specimens have taken their toll.
Oh, Joseph, as far as the Hughes 004-005 Howardite connection goes, I've
heard that for many reasonable reasons, the pairing should be made.
However, a formal one has not been made thus far, possibly due to some
textural differences.
I welcome your thoughts.
Martin Horejsi